Return to CCF in the News index page

Gay union ruling pushed
Matt Krupnick, Contra Costa Times
July 2, 2005

Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to pre-empt pending appeals and decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Lockyer's request came about a month after he appealed a San Francisco Superior Court ruling that deemed state marriage laws unconstitutional. Experts had predicted the case would end up in the state's highest court, and Friday's request could cut a year or more off the appeals process.

"Same-sex couples should be given a prompt determination as to whether they can marry," Lockyer wrote in his brief, "and should not have to put their lives and affairs on hold indefinitely while this matter works its way through several levels of court proceedings."

The legal debate began last year after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom licensed more than 3,000 gay and lesbian couples to marry, defying a state law that limits marriage to a man and woman. The state Supreme Court suspended the marriages after about a month so the legality could be determined.

Ruling on six lawsuits in March, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer compared the state ban to historic restrictions on interracial marriage and said it violated civil rights. Gay-marriage opponents disagreed, noting that more than 60 percent of California voters approved the ban in 2000.

Lower courts should be allowed to rule on the issue before the Supreme Court, said Randy Thomasson, who sued Newsom to end the marriages.

"I guess the real question is: What is more important, a vote of the people or the opinions of a few judges?" said Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families. "I'll go with the people any time."

Same-sex marriage supporters said Friday they were happy to hear that Lockyer wants a rapid resolution.

"Our couples need to know where they stand, and they very much want to get married," said Shannon Minter, a lawyer with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents 12 couples who sued the state. "Every day that goes by, our couples are being denied the right to marry."

The lead plaintiff in the case also welcomed a more rapid resolution.

Going through the appeals felt like "going through the motions," said San Francisco resident Lancy Woo. A quick, favorable Supreme Court ruling would allow her and her partner of 17 years to better raise their 7-year-old daughter, she said.

"I, as a parent, would like to take care of my child," Woo said. "All the hoops I need to jump through, it just doesn't seem fair."

Supreme Court justices could tell Lockyer to let the case work its way through appeals, but they would save time and money by allowing the parties to skip that step, said Larry Levine, a professor at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

"In a way, what the intermediate courts did wasn't going to matter very much anyway," he said. "It's too controversial and important an issue for (the Supreme Court) to sidestep."